Post by: publius on March 27, 2006, 01:57:42 AM
I have a sailboat race next Sunday. Is it going to rain?
What's going to happen in a hundred years?
Post by: 280plus on March 27, 2006, 02:53:02 AM
Post by: Ron on March 27, 2006, 03:28:16 AM
Is it a natural cycle? This is what I believe.
Is it due to mans influence on nature? This is what is being pushed today. This is nothing more than a trojan horse for more government control over the market and industry.
Post by: 280plus on March 27, 2006, 03:34:02 AM
Quote
Is it a natural cycle? This is what I believe.
BRAVO!!I wholeheartedly agree! It's also something for the media to hype and scare us with. Hey, they gotta sell SOMETHING!!
Post by: The Rabbi on March 27, 2006, 04:03:20 AM
Good discussion of this issue as well as the usual health scares that come out. He points out that anything shy of 100% difference is not statistically significant. So articles about "28% higher incidence of cancer for coffee drinkers" or whatever are bogus.
Post by: jefnvk on March 27, 2006, 04:12:32 AM
How long have we been keeping weather records? A hundred years? So we know that in a hundred years, the Earth's temperature has been rising. So what? What has it been doing for the other billions (or, if you are religious, the past few thousands) of years? If we know there are cooling and heating cycles, and the last one was a cooling cycle, is it really that hard to believe there is as great of a chance, if not a much better chance, that we are just stuck in this cycle?
Post by: grampster on March 27, 2006, 04:41:05 AM
Post by: Desertdog on March 27, 2006, 05:26:55 AM
I always think when someone says "man is causing global warming"; What did man do to cause the end of the Ice Age? I am convinced the Ice Age was a natural event and the end of it was a natural event. If warming was natural event then, why wouldn't it be a natural event now.
Post by: Tallpine on March 27, 2006, 05:44:56 AM
Roasting mastodon meat over campfires ...?
Probably responsible for killing off the sabre tooth tigers as well.
Post by: Desertdog on March 27, 2006, 06:12:47 AM
The Sunday Times March 26, 2006
Brighter sun adds to fears of climate change
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2104022,00.html
An excerpt;
"They reverse a 30-year trend. Measurements of sunshine levels between 1960 and 1990 had shown a decrease in the amount of sunshine reaching the earth, a phenomenon known as global dimming.
This was thought to have been caused by dust, smog and other pollutants, mainly from industrialised western countries.The pollutants, known as aerosols, reduced sunshine levels by absorbing and scattering solar radiation and promoting the formation of clouds that reflected radiation back into space.
In the last two decades, however, there have been significant decreases in such pollutants, partly due to industry becoming cleaner but largely because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and much of its heavy industry".
It's the enviormentalist and Russians fault.
Personally, I think the sun may be getting brighter as reported by some journals. Why else would the other plants in our solar system be getting warmer also?
Post by: stevelyn on March 30, 2006, 02:07:16 AM
As for a global warming trend.........you couldn't prove that by this past winter and it still isn't over yet.
Post by: Iain on March 30, 2006, 02:34:54 AM
Quote from: stevelyn
I'm with GoRon on this one. I think that whatever is happening is part of a natural cycle and there is nothing we did or can do to influence it.
I'm not picking on you here, it's just my questioning of a seemingly widely held opinion - how do you know this? I don't know that it is mans actions, and I don't know that it isn't. It just seems that scientific opinion, and again I'm not a scientist, seems to be pointing toward human involvement.Now, of course there is a certain agenda to some claims that human beings are destroying the planet. Whether it's anti-big business or some new Luddite movement I don't know. The thing I am cautious of though is discarding babies with bathwater and throwing out potentially valid scientific argument because there are a few loopy adherents to it.
And of course the 'global warming is all nonsense' crowd have their loopy adherents too.
Quote from: stevelyn
As for a global warming trend.........you couldn't prove that by this past winter and it still isn't over yet.
This winter had been colder here too, daffodils have come out much later than last year. We're not talking about trends that can be spotted year on year though, we're talking about how much earlier spring may or may not be compared to thirty, fifty, one hundred years ago.
Post by: El Tejon on March 30, 2006, 02:44:39 AM
As to fault, we all know this answer people . . . wait for it . . . it's the fault of . . . GEORGE BUSH AND HALIBURTON!
Post by: 280plus on March 30, 2006, 02:51:42 AM
I happen to be reading "Life on the Mississippi" right now. Written by a guy named "Mark Twain". Ever hear of him?
Written somewhere late 1800's I believe. I JUST read a part where he's talking about how the Mighty Mississippi had changed in the 25 years since he seen it last. By that time they were trying to "harness" the river and make it follow the plans of man as opposed to it's own plan. He said there were at least FIVE different "expert" opinions on what all this harnessing would do to the river. It totally reminded me of this Global Warming argument. Totally.
When I got a little more time I'll post the opinions as he listed them. It's uncanny.
So it all just keeps going around and around from what I can tell. Only the subject has changed.
Post by: 280plus on March 30, 2006, 03:20:14 AM
1. Confining the river and therefore deepening the channel would preserve threatened shores.
2. Money should only be spent on building and strengthening levees
3. The higher you build your levee the higher the river bottm will rise requiring yet higher levees.
4.Some believed in relieving the river to lakes in flood time.
5. Some beleived in building northern reservoirs to replenish the river in low water seasons.
"Wherever you find a man down there who believes in one of these theories you may turn to the next man and frame your talk on the hypothesis that he does not believe in that theory."
Post by: brimic on March 30, 2006, 04:04:45 AM
1. I live 1200 or so ft above sea level
2. We've had several sub zero days in my loacation this year.
3. We've had at elast 2' of snow in my area this year.
4. our summers are fairly short.
I can certainly see a few benifits to me if the temps rose by 2 or 3 degrees
Post by: Iain on March 30, 2006, 04:40:39 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on March 30, 2006, 05:26:28 AM
Quote from: Iain
I'm not picking on you here, it's just my questioning of a seemingly widely held opinion - how do you know this? I don't know that it is mans actions, and I don't know that it isn't. It just seems that scientific opinion, and again I'm not a scientist, seems to be pointing toward human involvement.
I dont know that global warming wasnt caused by Hillary Clinton's increased speaking in public. There is no way to prove it wasn't.The global warming fans seem to think that correlation=causation. It doesnt. But the thing is political so evidence is manufactured at will.
I have a young German fellow staying with me and he firmly believes that global warming is being caused by the U.S. because we consume 40% of the energy in the world (I pointed out we also produce 40% of the goods and services in the world as well but to no avail). He also firmly believes that this US-caused global warming is responsible for Katrina and other natural disasters. He studied it in school, he tells me. It is an article of faith in Europe I guess.
Post by: Iain on March 30, 2006, 05:37:42 AM
It's not an article of faith in Europe, but it is widely discussed, and in many cases presented as fact. This is of course questionable, but then after discussions about global warming on THR and APS I wonder if the exact opposite isn't the case in some sections of the US media and amongst members of the American public - and if so I'd regard that as equally questionable.
Post by: 280plus on March 30, 2006, 05:51:46 AM
But I'll bet we could find another imminent geologist to disagree with him if we wanted to. I think that's what Twain was getting at.
Post by: SADShooter on March 30, 2006, 05:58:41 AM
There is also a widely held perception that scientists are inherently objective, and that a scientific premise is therefore inviolate. Unfortunately, as I am learning in my latest employment, there is just as much political strife, grubbing for money, and plain old human nature in science as any other field of human endeavor. As a result, any novel theory should be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism.
The critical variable, in my opinion, is the influence of the media. Here, in the U.S. at least, we have a story in which a crisis looms on the horizon, driven by heartless corporations polluting the environment with the aid of a slavishly subservient government. That's tremendous fodder for a media culture ever in search of a crime and a culprit.
I have no reservations in agreeing that mankind is impacting our environment, often negatively. But the notion that a century or two of industrialization and human population growth can radically disrupt a system so large and sophisticated, compared to the many factors over which we (currently) have no control? It seems counterintuitive, and I need more that a scientist seeking renewed grant funding to buy it.
p.s: 280plus 1
Post by: Iain on March 30, 2006, 06:18:08 AM
Quote from: SADShooter
There is also a widely held perception that scientists are inherently objective, and that a scientific premise is therefore inviolate. Unfortunately, as I am learning in my latest employment, there is just as much political strife, grubbing for money, and plain old human nature in science as any other field of human endeavor.
Absolutely. But two can play 'follow the money', and I'm betting there is a considerable amount of money to be followed on both sides of this argument. After it's not being anti-big business to suggest that uncontested 'Carbon dioxide causes global warming and big business pumps out that stuff' theories would be very bad for said business.Quote from: SADShooter
As a result, any novel theory should be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Again I agree, and I approach the idea that human beings have had and can have no measurable damaging effects on global systems very sceptically. 280plus is right when he says that you can find an 'expert' for each side of an argument. Which is why I am very cautious of those with hard and fast answers.
Post by: SADShooter on March 30, 2006, 06:59:18 AM
I'm no ostrich. Reducing fossil fuel emissions, dependence on foreign oil, exploration of alternate energy sources, conservation, and environmental stewardship all make sense to me regardless of potential global disaster. I would just like to see them happen in a rational, cost-benefit/market-driven fashion rather than under a rush to judgment based on fear-mongering, which is what I perceive to be happening.
I personally see a tremendous irony in the prospect of human efforts to cool the Earth being followed by an environmentally-driven ice age.
Post by: grampster on March 30, 2006, 07:07:11 AM
Post by: Iain on March 30, 2006, 07:49:16 AM
Quote from: SADShooter
I'm no ostrich. Reducing fossil fuel emissions, dependence on foreign oil, exploration of alternate energy sources, conservation, and environmental stewardship all make sense to me regardless of potential global disaster. I would just like to see them happen in a rational, cost-benefit/market-driven fashion rather than under a rush to judgment based on fear-mongering, which is what I perceive to be happening.
I agree with you, and when Britain comes to decide how our power for the next few decades is to be generated, as we will shortly, I'll be arguing in favour of nuclear over fossil fuels or any insanely expensive attempt at massive investment in renewables. For some reason the greens still don't like me. My point is that the truly sceptical position on the global warming argument is to question the strident voices on either side, not to only question the dominant voice as so many seem to do (generally, not just in this thread.)
Post by: The Rabbi on March 30, 2006, 07:51:44 AM
Quote from: Iain
I agree with you, and when Britain comes to decide how our power for the next few decades is to be generated, as we will shortly, I'll be arguing in favour of nuclear over fossil fuels or any insanely expensive attempt at massive investment in renewables. For some reason the greens still don't like me.
My point is that the truly sceptical position on the global warming argument is to question the strident voices on either side, not to only question the dominant voice as so many seem to do (generally, not just in this thread.)
Which brings another point. Why does Britain have to decide anything? Why not leave this to the marketplace to price and provide power to people?
My point is that the truly sceptical position on the global warming argument is to question the strident voices on either side, not to only question the dominant voice as so many seem to do (generally, not just in this thread.)
Post by: The Rabbi on March 30, 2006, 08:17:05 AM
Quote
In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims.
During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in
centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may
well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from
uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the
American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest
winters within anyone's recollection.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing
number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological
fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from
place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe
they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend
shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive,
for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the
waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the
Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is
at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of
Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite
weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had
suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in
the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable
expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds the so-called circumpolar vortexthat
sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of
cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds
and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other droughtridden
areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the
same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the
winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air
masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent stormsthe Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun
could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemispherethereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year
sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of
how the cycle might be involved.
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a
result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's longrange-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such
knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and
atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip
the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age
within only a few hundred years.
The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as
high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one
or more of the three major grain-exporting countriesthe U.S., Canada and Australia global food
stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president
of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe
that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in
centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may
well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from
uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the
American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest
winters within anyone's recollection.
As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing
number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological
fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from
place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe
they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend
shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive,
for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the
waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the
Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is
at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of
Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite
weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had
suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in
the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.
Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable
expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds the so-called circumpolar vortexthat
sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of
cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds
and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other droughtridden
areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the
same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the
winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air
masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent stormsthe Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun
could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemispherethereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year
sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of
how the cycle might be involved.
Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a
result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.
Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's longrange-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such
knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and
atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip
the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age
within only a few hundred years.
The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as
high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one
or more of the three major grain-exporting countriesthe U.S., Canada and Australia global food
stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president
of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe
that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
Post by: Iain on March 30, 2006, 08:24:00 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Which brings another point. Why does Britain have to decide anything? Why not leave this to the marketplace to price and provide power to people?
Well yes, but wherever in the world you are planning permission for such things as nuclear power stations, and even vast windfarms, is going to become a political question. Somewhat OT though.
Post by: SADShooter on March 30, 2006, 08:37:31 AM
Post by: gunsmith on March 30, 2006, 10:33:59 AM
Post by: gunsmith on March 30, 2006, 10:42:39 AM
Thank God GW didn't sign that nonsense.
Post by: brimic on March 30, 2006, 10:55:07 AM
Quote
I know you're kidding
Actually, I'm not.
Post by: stevelyn on April 01, 2006, 03:33:49 AM
Quote from: Iain
Quote from: stevelyn
I'm with GoRon on this one. I think that whatever is happening is part of a natural cycle and there is nothing we did or can do to influence it.
I'm not picking on you here, it's just my questioning of a seemingly widely held opinion - how do you know this? I don't know that it is mans actions, and I don't know that it isn't. It just seems that scientific opinion, and again I'm not a scientist, seems to be pointing toward human involvement.Now, of course there is a certain agenda to some claims that human beings are destroying the planet. Whether it's anti-big business or some new Luddite movement I don't know. The thing I am cautious of though is discarding babies with bathwater and throwing out potentially valid scientific argument because there are a few loopy adherents to it.
And of course the 'global warming is all nonsense' crowd have their loopy adherents too.
Quote from: stevelyn
As for a global warming trend.........you couldn't prove that by this past winter and it still isn't over yet.
This winter had been colder here too, daffodils have come out much later than last year. We're not talking about trends that can be spotted year on year though, we're talking about how much earlier spring may or may not be compared to thirty, fifty, one hundred years ago.The difference between then and now.............someone's figured out how to make a buck off it and is attempting to manipulate public policy to do so.
Post by: publius on April 03, 2006, 03:17:09 AM
Sincerely,
The Topic Starter
Thanks to all for a good discussion so far. Sorry I have not had time to join in more. FWIW, I think that the global warming scare is a Luddite thing, like lots of modern enviro causes. In my area, the war on the internal combustion engine has taken the form of protecting the manatees. Nationally and internationally, it has taken the form of fighting global warming.
Quote
Is global warming debate getting overheated?
April 2, 2006
http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo02.html#
BY GEORGE WILL
So, ''the debate is over.'' Time magazine says so. Last week's cover story exhorted readers to ''Be Worried. Be Very Worried,'' and ABC News concurred in several stories. So did Montana's governor, speaking on ABC. And there was polling about global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration.
Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that 1 degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet's temperature. To take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice, or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.
Why have Americans been dilatory about becoming as worried -- as very worried -- as Time and ABC think proper? An article on ABC's Web site wonders ominously, ''Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?'' It suggests there has been a misinformation campaign implying that scientists might not be unanimous, a campaign by big oil. And the coal industry. But speaking of coal . . .
Recently, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer flew with ABC's George Stephanopoulos over Glacier National Park's receding glaciers. But Schweitzer offered hope: Everyone, buy Montana coal. New technologies can, he said, burn it while removing carbon causes of global warming.
Stephanopoulos noted that such technologies are at least four years away and ''all the scientists'' say something must be done ''right now.''
While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of ''extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.'' Science Digest (February 1973) reported that ''the world's climatologists are agreed'' that we must ''prepare for the next ice age.'' The Christian Science Monitor (''Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect,'' Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers ''have begun to advance,'' ''growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter'' and ''the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.'' Newsweek agreed (''The Cooling World,'' April 28, 1975) that meteorologists ''are almost unanimous'' that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said ''may mark the return to another ice age.''
In fact, the earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. But suppose the scientists and their journalistic conduits, who today say they were so spectacularly wrong so recently, are now correct. Suppose the earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change -- remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Middle West -- must be bad? Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is ''over''?
About the mystery that vexes ABC -- Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? -- perhaps the ''problem'' is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon. Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.
April 2, 2006
http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo02.html#
BY GEORGE WILL
So, ''the debate is over.'' Time magazine says so. Last week's cover story exhorted readers to ''Be Worried. Be Very Worried,'' and ABC News concurred in several stories. So did Montana's governor, speaking on ABC. And there was polling about global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration.
Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that 1 degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet's temperature. To take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice, or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.
Why have Americans been dilatory about becoming as worried -- as very worried -- as Time and ABC think proper? An article on ABC's Web site wonders ominously, ''Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?'' It suggests there has been a misinformation campaign implying that scientists might not be unanimous, a campaign by big oil. And the coal industry. But speaking of coal . . .
Recently, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer flew with ABC's George Stephanopoulos over Glacier National Park's receding glaciers. But Schweitzer offered hope: Everyone, buy Montana coal. New technologies can, he said, burn it while removing carbon causes of global warming.
Stephanopoulos noted that such technologies are at least four years away and ''all the scientists'' say something must be done ''right now.''
While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of ''extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.'' Science Digest (February 1973) reported that ''the world's climatologists are agreed'' that we must ''prepare for the next ice age.'' The Christian Science Monitor (''Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect,'' Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers ''have begun to advance,'' ''growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter'' and ''the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.'' Newsweek agreed (''The Cooling World,'' April 28, 1975) that meteorologists ''are almost unanimous'' that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said ''may mark the return to another ice age.''
In fact, the earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. But suppose the scientists and their journalistic conduits, who today say they were so spectacularly wrong so recently, are now correct. Suppose the earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change -- remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Middle West -- must be bad? Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is ''over''?
About the mystery that vexes ABC -- Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? -- perhaps the ''problem'' is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon. Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.
Post by: RocketMan on April 03, 2006, 08:32:15 PM
Its premise was that the earth undergoes a short period, forty to fifty years or so, of increasing natural CO2 levels and global warming, just prior to global temperatures falling off a cliff and an ice age beginning. The evidence was taken from ice core samples and other sources IIRC.
I wish I could find the article. It was very persuasive.
Post by: m1911owner on April 07, 2006, 07:03:11 AM
I especially have great trouble trying to understand why the Russians and Canadians are trying to stop global warming. Global Warming seems like a huge win for them.
Post by: Art Eatman on April 07, 2006, 04:38:41 PM
Warming would increase the growing season in many grain-producing regions. What worries climatologists is the possibility of weather pattern changes that could reduce average rainfall--and reduce crop production. Another great unknown...
If we went nuke for electricity, we'd cut air pollution particulate matter (SO2, e.g.) and reduce CO2 much more than changing to dual-fuel hybrid cars ever would--or getting out of SUVs and into Honda Civics. Part of the US problem is that people think the movie "The China Syndrome" is a documentary...
Art
Post by: brimic on April 08, 2006, 06:17:11 AM
Quote
I especially have great trouble trying to understand why the Russians and Canadians are trying to stop global warming. Global Warming seems like a huge win for them.
Or they could use scare tactics related to global warming to leverage their socialistic controls on the United States to try to bring us down to their level. Whether or not global warming is a fact or a farce (I lean heavily towards farce myself if not outright fraud), noone alive right now will be effected by it in any significant way during the span of their lifetimes.
Post by: Waitone on April 08, 2006, 02:08:52 PM
How much solar energy is intercepted by the earth in one 24 hour period? How does that number compare to the total energy used by humanity in a comparable period of time.
Quote
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solrad.html
Using the Solar Constant we can calculate (see the formula below) that the total solar energy intercepted by the Earth in one year is 5.5 million exajoules [EJ/y]. To appreciate this figure we have to compare it with the global energy consumption in 2005, which was only 463 EJ/y(poster's comment--0.00842% of the total). Thus, even though the Sun is so far from us, we still receive huge amounts of energy from this immensely powerful source.
Using information contained in The Little Green Handbook you can also calculate that our current global annual consumption of energy is equal to the average solar energy reaching the Earth's surface over a period of only one hour and 16 minutes. Add to it an extra 30 minutes and you'll have enough energy for the annual global consumption in 2020.
Let me repeat for emphasis, The amount of solar energy reaching the earth in 1 hour and 16 minutes is equal to humanity energy production for an entire year. I cite solar statistics because it is the most diffused form of energy and because we can visualize the quantities. I just wonder what is the comparable energy availability from a nice quiet volcano eruption.Using the Solar Constant we can calculate (see the formula below) that the total solar energy intercepted by the Earth in one year is 5.5 million exajoules [EJ/y]. To appreciate this figure we have to compare it with the global energy consumption in 2005, which was only 463 EJ/y(poster's comment--0.00842% of the total). Thus, even though the Sun is so far from us, we still receive huge amounts of energy from this immensely powerful source.
Using information contained in The Little Green Handbook you can also calculate that our current global annual consumption of energy is equal to the average solar energy reaching the Earth's surface over a period of only one hour and 16 minutes. Add to it an extra 30 minutes and you'll have enough energy for the annual global consumption in 2020.
My point is quite simpleminded. Global warming MAY be taking place, but humans ain't the cause and they sure ain't gonna do anything about it. Some things are far bigger than the human ego. Our environmental buddies should learn a lesson.
Post by: Iain on April 08, 2006, 02:51:48 PM
Post by: Waitone on April 08, 2006, 03:04:50 PM
Environmental chicken-littles say the earth is precariously balanced.
I say the earth is a closed loop servo system.
Major difference between the two.
Post by: Iain on April 08, 2006, 03:08:18 PM
I'd say you both might have a point.
Post by: publius on May 03, 2006, 01:49:31 AM
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Post by: richyoung on May 03, 2006, 05:07:38 AM
Quote from: Iain
Quote from: stevelyn
I'm with GoRon on this one. I think that whatever is happening is part of a natural cycle and there is nothing we did or can do to influence it.
I'm not picking on you here, it's just my questioning of a seemingly widely held opinion - how do you know this?Quote
I don't know that it is mans actions, and I don't know that it isn't.
Perhaps some research is in order. Start with this - how do you even APPROXIMATE taking the temperature of the whole Earth - from core to the tip of the atmosphere, including all levels of the ocean. How long has mankind had the ability to do that? What is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth? Is increasing CO2 level a LEADING, or TRAILING indicator of global warming?Quote
It just seems that scientific opinion, and again I'm not a scientist, seems to be pointing toward human involvement.
At one time, scientific opinion was that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter, radio waves traveled through a substance called "ether", and no vehicle could exceed 60 MPH because no one would be able to breath.... science is unfortunately a substitute for religion for many of its practicioneers, and like any religion, it has an orthodoxy that is defended from heresy. Please note that the "ozone hole" that was going to kill us all has gone away, despite the fact that the third world is making, and releasing as many florocarbons now as ever.Quote
Now, of course there is a certain agenda to some claims that human beings are destroying the planet. Whether it's anti-big business or some new Luddite movement I don't know.
I would submit you DO know - you just listed them...
Post by: richyoung on May 03, 2006, 05:15:09 AM
Quote from: The Rabbi
Quote from: Iain
I agree with you, and when Britain comes to decide how our power for the next few decades is to be generated, as we will shortly, I'll be arguing in favour of nuclear over fossil fuels or any insanely expensive attempt at massive investment in renewables. For some reason the greens still don't like me.
My point is that the truly sceptical position on the global warming argument is to question the strident voices on either side, not to only question the dominant voice as so many seem to do (generally, not just in this thread.)
Which brings another point. Why does Britain have to decide anything? Why not leave this to the marketplace to price and provide power to people?My point is that the truly sceptical position on the global warming argument is to question the strident voices on either side, not to only question the dominant voice as so many seem to do (generally, not just in this thread.)
Post by: richyoung on May 03, 2006, 05:22:13 AM
Quote from: m1911owner
I especially have great trouble trying to understand why the Russians and Canadians are trying to stop global warming. Global Warming seems like a huge win for them.
Russia wants to sell nuiclear reactors and fuel to people the West won't, now that they have a bunch of nuclear physicists and uranium that aren't being used for warheads any more. Canada has huge excess supplies of hydroelectric power that they want to sell to the Yankess down south, instead of having them burn theor own fossi lfuels to make it. Before "global waming", "acid rain" was the bandwagon they were riding to that end, until the wheels fell off of that one..
Post by: Iain on May 03, 2006, 06:05:25 AM
Quote from: richyoung
Because the last Ice Age ended - and it wasn't because Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal Man were driving Suburbans and Explorers to their jobs at the coal-fired electric plant.
Rich, the last Ice Age ended without human action. That doesn't prove that the next one won't be delayed or accelerated by human action.Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: Iain
I don't know that it is mans actions, and I don't know that it isn't.
Perhaps some research is in order. Start with this - how do you even APPROXIMATE taking the temperature of the whole Earth - from core to the tip of the atmosphere, including all levels of the ocean. How long has mankind had the ability to do that? What is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth? Is increasing CO2 level a LEADING, or TRAILING indicator of global warming?Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: Iain
It just seems that scientific opinion, and again I'm not a scientist, seems to be pointing toward human involvement.
At one time, scientific opinion was that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter, radio waves traveled through a substance called "ether", and no vehicle could exceed 60 MPH because no one would be able to breath.... science is unfortunately a substitute for religion for many of its practicioneers, and like any religion, it has an orthodoxy that is defended from heresy. Please note that the "ozone hole" that was going to kill us all has gone away, despite the fact that the third world is making, and releasing as many florocarbons now as ever.Quote from: richyoung
Quote from: Iain
Now, of course there is a certain agenda to some claims that human beings are destroying the planet. Whether it's anti-big business or some new Luddite movement I don't know.
I would submit you DO know - you just listed them...When I list these agendas as being the ones behind 'human action causes global warming' I of course omitted a potential list for the 'human beings can never cause global warmings' argument.
Post by: richyoung on May 03, 2006, 09:56:22 AM
Quote from: Iain
Rich, the last Ice Age ended without human action. That doesn't prove that the next one won't be delayed or accelerated by human action.
Cyclically speaking, we are OVERDUE for an ice age. Please explain to me how DELAYING one, by human action, would be a BAD thing. Please explain how Global WARMING can cause enough Global COOLING to cause an ice age.Quote from: Iain
I don't know that it is mans actions, and I don't know that it isn't.
Quote from: richyoung
Because the last Ice Age ended - and it wasn't because Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal Man were driving Suburbans and Explorers to their jobs at the coal-fired electric plant.
Perhaps some research is in order. Start with this - how do you even APPROXIMATE taking the temperature of the whole Earth - from core to the tip of the atmosphere, including all levels of the ocean. How long has mankind had the ability to do that? What is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth? Is increasing CO2 level a LEADING, or TRAILING indicator of global warming?
Perhaps some research is in order. Start with this - how do you even APPROXIMATE taking the temperature of the whole Earth - from core to the tip of the atmosphere, including all levels of the ocean. How long has mankind had the ability to do that? What is the primary greenhouse gas on Earth? Is increasing CO2 level a LEADING, or TRAILING indicator of global warming?
Quote
You tell me.
OK - you asked for it! The ONLY way you can APPROXIMATE whether the Earth is cooling, or heating up, is to measure the amount of energy supplied by the Sun, by the decay of radiocative elements in the Earth's crust, and by tidal friction in crust, make your BEST GUESS about how much of that solar energy is absorbed by the Earth, measure by satellite the amount of infrared energy radiated by the earth, make your BEST GUESS as to how much to adjust the radiation figures for things like sensor error or satellite orbit decay over time, or satellite skew angle not being constant, (or even known for certain at all times). Subtract the radiated total from the sum of all the heat produced by all sources, and see if it balances out, or which way it doesn't. Ground measurments are biased, in that they tend to take place where people either are, or can easily get to - (i.e. not on top of Mt. Everest, at the bottom of the ocean, or deep in the Earth's crust. Balloon data agree with corrected satellite data (scientists are still arguing over how to correct the satellite observations), and the computer models that predict "global warming" (similar to the flawed models that falsely predicted "nuclear winter" cannot, when fed CURRENT data, replicate CURRENT conditions. Short version - we only have 30 years of data where we can even ATTEMP to calculate a net energy loss or gain for the earth - only 10-15 years of really good data, (that the scientists are still arguing about) and even in THAT data global warming stopped in 1998 - even tho we kept right on burning fossil fuels. Global warming a hoax - a scare tactic to get research funding and control over businesses and people that otherwise could not happen.Quote
Point is that I'm not a scientist.
...but you are reasonably intelligent, AND have the Internet. Of cource, I have the advantage of having been through many of these "Chicken Little" scams in my life - I'm 44, and lived through:1. The "Unsafe at any speed" scam.
2. The 'Silent Spring"/DDT scam
3. The "Mercury in the Fish" scam.
4. The "Population Bomb"/famine scam.
5. Alar.
6. Tris.
7. Asbestoes.
8. The "Exploding GMC/Chevy Pickup Scam".
9. The Coming Ice Age.
10. "Nuclear Winter"
11. The "Hole In The Ozone"/ Freon's gonna kill us! scam.
12. Phosphates in detergent.
13. The "Great Lakes are dead" scam.
14. Heterosexual AIDS epidemic.
15. Swine flu panic.
16. "Cell phones cause brain cancer" scam.
17. "Power lines cause cancer" scam.
& a host that I'm overlooking, I'm sure. Guess why I tend to demand HARD PROOF before I panic now....
Quote
I don't know whether CO2 is a trailing or leading indicator of global warming.
Don't you think thats an important question to answer, in the process of deciding if anthropomorphic global warming is evn possible, much less actually occuring? And for your info, CO2 is a TRAILING indicator of global warming - one of the major carbon sinks in Earths chemistry is the ocean, in the form of dissolved CO2. When the water gets warmer, (just like your soda pop left open, or the water you boil to cook eggs...) it can't hold as much dissolved gas - so co2, along with other gases, are released. This results in a net increase in CO2 in the air, as more if it is dissolved, so more releases. This is verified by polar ice core samples.Quote
I'll submit that a lot of people that believe in global warming haven't the faintest either. And vice versa. And there are those who choose to believe one over the other. My whole point is that the strident voices are arguing for two as yet unproven cases - that we are causing it, and that we aren't.
There used to be strident voices in the '70s saying that Mankind, with his colored tiolet paper & other industrial uses, was putting so much mercury in the environment that tuna, marlin, swordfish were becoming unsafe to eat. Then acheologists found the remains of a 10,000 year old settlement - including remains of fish that they were eating. They tested the mercury levels, and found them IDENTICAL to the current ones. At the time, (early 70s) ALL the mercury EVR used by man from the dawn of time would have fit into 14 railraod boxcars. The idea that 14 railroad cars of ANYTHING could noticiblay effect the level of a mineral in the ocean that is constantly being eroded and deposited naturally from the same mineral sources mankind obtains it from is ESACTLY the same kind of hoo-haw that the global warming blissninnies push.Quote
Yep. So? Scientists have been wrong before ergo they are wrong now because I don't like their conclusions?
Their conclusions don't MAKE SENSE - if the Big Light in the Sky brightens, or dims - (and it does periodically) - whether I drive a Corvette to work or ride the bus - whether we ALL drive a Corvette to work or ride the buss - makes no difference.Quote
Well there you are. You choose to believe that a large number of scientists are charlatans, and I don't.
...you do KNOW that almost 20,000 scientist signed a letter urging the US not to ratify the Kyoto accords because:1. They felt that global warming was not proven, and...
2. They felt that even if it existed, there was no proof that man caused it, and
3. Even if it existed and Man caused it, it was minor and had beneficial effects in terms of longer growing seasons, higher crop yields, more arable land, delayed Ice Age, etc.
Post by: publius on May 03, 2006, 12:12:48 PM
You need to work on your ability to stampede in a panic.
Post by: Iain on May 03, 2006, 02:04:24 PM
Which is great. I read your posts and I find them interesting and informative, and full of useful potential ammunition when having this discussion and playing my same role but with those who firmly do believe in global warming. And then one day I'll come across a guy who knows more than I do and his thoughts will be interesting and informative, and in favour of global warming, and then I'll be extra confused. Even more so than I am already.
I could spend the next ten years of my life studying a few hours a day and hope to call myself an amateur climatologist at the end of it. I'm not going to - and here is my point, neither has the vast majority of the proponents of either cause. Sure the guys at the top are experts, but I can't trust them because I don't understand them, and worse, they know that. Worse still, the vast majority of stuff I will hear about global warming will be filtered in some way by a media that doesn't understand, and knows that I don't either.
Ultimately every time someone comes along and throws knowledgable posts like yours at me I respect them for it, even if the angle is clear. And everytime someone comes along and says 'global warming has always happened and it's arrogant to assume that man has caused it', or conversely 'global warming is going to freaking kill us all dude', and that is the substance - I don't respect it.
So there we go, that is the sum total of my participation in this thread - how is it that everyone is so sure? One side tells me that every 'reputable' scientist believes in it, and the other tells me that every 'reputable' scientist don't. I hardly think that my position is stampeding with the herd.
* - I'm not saying that exams I took later weren't hard. I was just never cut out to be a chemist.
Post by: richyoung on May 04, 2006, 06:08:41 AM
Quote from: Iain
Only reasonably intelligent eh? I can live with that.
I appologize - open mouth, insert foot. What I * MEANT * to type was that any reasonably intelligent person with internet access has access to both sides of the story and the faculties ot reach their own intelligent conclusion - and that you seem way more qualified than that minimum, as you at least ask questions, rather than stampedeing with the herd. If I offended, I was wrong - I am a lot better with cars, guns, computers, and guitars than I am with people - still working on those people skills...Quote
Interestingly enough seven years ago I was studying my ass off for the hardest exam that I have yet taken, my chemistry A-level*. All that study, and all that time, has taught me one thing that is pertinent to this conversation - you know more about this than I do.
Like I said, living thru ther previous Chicken Littles makes me take a hard look at the evidence before I give up my car, my air conditioning, etc, on some one's alarmist premises.Quote
Which is great. I read your posts and I find them interesting and informative, and full of useful potential ammunition when having this discussion and playing my same role but with those who firmly do believe in global warming. And then one day I'll come across a guy who knows more than I do and his thoughts will be interesting and informative, and in favour of global warming, and then I'll be extra confused. Even more so than I am already.
The three big points to remember:1. Our energy input from the sun varies due to eccentricities in orbit, global tilt, and changes in solar output doe to sunspot and other cycles.
2. We haven't had ANY capability to measure Earth's energy radiation at all until about 30 years ago - exsperts still argue whether we can ACCURATELY do it (and how to do it) now - and that's NOT enough time to track climate change.
3. Global warming is basedon computer models that, when fed CURRENT data, cannot replicate CURRENT conditions - they are flawed - can't even tell you for sure if its going to rain tomorrow, much less what the temperature in Antarctica will be 100 years from now.
Quote
I could spend the next ten years of my life studying a few hours a day and hope to call myself an amateur climatologist at the end of it. I'm not going to - and here is my point, neither has the vast majority of the proponents of either cause. Sure the guys at the top are experts, but I can't trust them because I don't understand them, and worse, they know that. Worse still, the vast majority of stuff I will hear about global warming will be filtered in some way by a media that doesn't understand, and knows that I don't either.
Ultimately every time someone comes along and throws knowledgable posts like yours at me I respect them for it, even if the angle is clear. And everytime someone comes along and says 'global warming has always happened and it's arrogant to assume that man has caused it', or conversely 'global warming is going to freaking kill us all dude', and that is the substance - I don't respect it.
My position, from the best that I can follow the science, is that mankind's fossil fuel use is responsible for a 0.1 to 0.3 degree raise in the nighttime summer temperatures - which is a GOOD thing, as:Ultimately every time someone comes along and throws knowledgable posts like yours at me I respect them for it, even if the angle is clear. And everytime someone comes along and says 'global warming has always happened and it's arrogant to assume that man has caused it', or conversely 'global warming is going to freaking kill us all dude', and that is the substance - I don't respect it.
1. CO2 is PLANT FOOD - 98% of all the plant mass on earth comes from absorbed CO2, with water and minerals making up the rest. More CO2 - higher cropp yields, more resistance to disease. Its like giving an athlete oxygen instead of air...
2. Warmer summer nights increase yeilds for foodstuffs like corn and wheat.
3. It amy delay the overdue Ice Age from arriving, or make it less intense.
Quote
So there we go, that is the sum total of my participation in this thread - how is it that everyone is so sure? One side tells me that every 'reputable' scientist believes in it, and the other tells me that every 'reputable' scientist don't. I hardly think that my position is stampeding with the herd.
Follow the money - especially reasearch grants, and more importantly, but less visible, government control over private property and industry in the name of "staving off the crisis". If you can handle chemistry, a few hours perusing junkscience.com and similar sites, with a critical, analytical mind, will show you the way...
Post by: grampster on May 04, 2006, 06:40:41 AM
I read a fine book that devoted a chapter to that myth. ("Trashing the Planet", by Dixie Lee Ray) Oddly, while I was reading her debunking, while also acknowledging the fact that we should be careful in how we do things, 60 minutes ran a piece on Acid Rain that provided the results of a 10 year study done by a major university that studied the regions in the US and Canada that were being "destroyed". That study, in the field, found that acid rain was a non issue, that rainfall was generally naturally acidic and the lakes in the areas of the US and Canada that were being "devestated" were acidic due to conditions in the soil that were natural and had existed there for eons. Tree die off was ascribed to elevation issues and trees that don't do well at elevations. In addition, 60 minutes interviewed some green lawyers that represent groups that were responsible for the "Clean Air Act" Billions of dollars boondoggle and got them to admit the study was right, but that it didn't matter as the argument was about money and the power to move their agenda; whatever it took.
So to say I'm dubious about "Global Warming" would be an understatement.
Post by: Iain on May 04, 2006, 01:33:35 PM
It's been good to discuss this with you Rich. I can only hope that next time I question the 'beliefs' and even the 'feelings' of a global warming advocate that they will remain as pleasant as you have.
Post by: mr.v. on May 04, 2006, 10:41:54 PM
Quote
"ozone hole" that was going to kill us all has gone away, despite the fact that the third world is making, and releasing as many florocarbons now as ever.
Quote
Why haven't we heard much about the ozone hole lately? Cause it was bullshit. Propagated by Union Carbide due to the fact that their patent on Freon was running out.
What unbelievably unsupported statements that argue against empirical evidence and data demonstrating reduced levels of ozone (ozone depletion) over the past decades and chemistry demonstrating a likely mechanism for its depletion from long-persisting human manufactured chemicals...Expand your minds before you make such wildly unsupported statements. And if you do feel that there is good evidence to counter the data gathered by the scientists or can provide reasonable evidence that the data are fabricated...please cite a reference so that the rest of us can understand how it is that you disagree with the established theory...
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/unepSciQandA.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
Post by: richyoung on May 05, 2006, 05:45:13 AM
Quote from: mr.v.
Quote
"ozone hole" that was going to kill us all has gone away, despite the fact that the third world is making, and releasing as many florocarbons now as ever.
Quote
Why haven't we heard much about the ozone hole lately? Cause it was bullshit. Propagated by Union Carbide due to the fact that their patent on Freon was running out.
What unbelievably unsupported statements that argue against empirical evidence and data demonstrating reduced levels of ozone (ozone depletion) over the past decades and chemistry demonstrating a likely mechanism for its depletion from long-persisting human manufactured chemicals...A. "Fifteen to thirty kilometers up in the atmosphere, in the layer called the stratosphere, ozone is created and destroyed primarily by ultraviolet radiation. The air in the stratosphere is bombarded continuously by ultraviolet radiation from the sun. When high-energy ultraviolet rays strike molecules of ordinary oxygen (O2), they split the molecule into two single oxygen atoms, known as atomic oxygen (O). A freed oxygen atom then can combine with an oxygen molecule to form a molecule of ozone (O3). "
according to: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=55
Q. Where was the "Ozone Hole" disovered?
A. The ozone hole is located over the south pole.
according to:http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/environ/ENV023.HTM
Q. What is unusual about "day" and "night" at the poles?
A. Rather than having a 24 hour day/night cycle, the poles and the regions around them have 1 "day" a year - a 6 month period of continuous light, followed by a 6 month period of total darkness.'
Q. When was the "ozone hole" discovered, relative to the light cycle at the poles?
A. At the END of the antarctic "night".
Essentially, they found reduced levels of a chemical created by ultraviolet light in a region that had NO light of any kind, much less ultraviolet, for 6 MONTHS!! DUH! I could have saved them the grant money...
Now for advanced studies:
1. Chlorine molecules are the part of Freon accused of breaking down ozone. How many tons of chlorine does MAN put into the air, compared to NATURAL SOURCES, like oceanic evaporation and volcanoes?
2. Despite various treaties, chloroflorocarbon manufacture and use continues unchecked in places like China, India, Mexico, etc. Add to that the fact that all PREVIOUSLY manufactured freon is still steadily leaking into the atmosphere. Its been scientifically proven since a Space Shuttle misson in 1994 that the photochemical theory of ozone depletion is FALSE: read about it at http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/Crista.html#3link
Quote
Expand your minds before you make such wildly unsupported statements.
The Crista {scientists at the University of Wuppertal in Germany}, researchers emphasized this point in their Nov. 6, 1995 press statement: "One can only understand these occurrences if one examines them in their totality and mutual interdependence. One finds no solution to the ozone problem if one examines only the photochemical side, but neglects the energetics and dynamics."
"Instead of a uniform distribution of ozone along a [band of constant] latitude, as the current models predict. Cristas showed a patchwork of large and small structures in the ozone distribution ... The first results show that photochemical models alone do not adequately describe the condition of the atmosphere. Dynamic processes and transports must be considered, for which temperatures, waves, and turbulences show themselves responsible."
Dr. Ulrich Grossman, one of the leaders of the Crista project at the University of Wuppertal, summarized some of the results in an interview: (1)
"The main point is that the instrument measures with an extremely high spatial resolution in a very short time. So we get a very dense measurement net over the globe within the constraints of the Shuttle orbit. What we see in nearly all emissions and also in ozone density is that there are large fluctuations from point to point and that the ozone distribution in a horizontal map looks like a weather map."
When the modelers "talk about zonally averaged values, it is useless," Grossman said. The ozone layer "is very, very structured. All these structures are moving around, like what you see in the weather map... You have to take all these into account if you want to make a real, reliable forecast for ozone over the next... 20 or 40 years."
Because all the processes involving all these gases in the atmosphere generally are nonlinear, when you take averages, you make mistakes. Once you are down to precision on the order of [hundredths], the errors which you would make by using average values are much bigger than that. Grossman does not believe that even a "mathematical program with the best computers" would be able to do this properly.
...The scientists, Kjell Henriksen from the University of Tromso in Norway and Valentin Roldugin from the Polar Geophysical Institute in Russia, analyzed one year of daily samples from six Soviet Middle Asian ozone measuring stations at two different altitudes.
They discovered that changes in the ozone layer were directly caused by the horizontal and vertical movement of air masses (that is, wind dynamics). A close analysis of the data also demonstrated that chemistry played no role in the thickness of the ozone layer over these stations...
After a detailed analysis of the Russian data, Henriksen and Roldugin conclude with a sharp reminder to the promoters of the ozone depletion fraud that they cannot arbitrarily exclude factors other than chemistry from their models:
The question of so-called "ozone depletion" has to be investigated from the point of view of long-term variation of general circulation in the atmosphere. Models of "the depletion," as summarized in [the World Meteorological Organization's] WMO Report, must realize that the meteorological conditions have significant effects on the ozone layer, being the main cause of seasonal as well as most of the shorter and apparently arbitrary density and thermal variations."
Quote
And if you do feel that there is good evidence to counter the data gathered by the scientists or can provide reasonable evidence that the data are fabricated...please cite a reference so that the rest of us can understand how it is that you disagree with the established theory...
See above, for one...plus: From the World of Physics published a thorough review of ozone science by Thormod Henriksen from the Institute of Physics at the University of Oslo, which presents evidence that the ozone layer was thinner in the 1940s than today!
the ozone layer went through a thinning process in the 1940s similar to that occurring now, with the exception, as noted by Henriksen, that "the ozone layer over southern Norway was thinner in the period between 1940 to 1946 than it is today." Henriksen also points out that the level of ultraviolet (UV) radiation have hardly changed:
"[In] the last 50 years the ozone layer has not changed to such a degree that biological effects are to be expected. In other words, there have hardly been any changes in the levels of UV-radiation, and therefore it is a dead-end to connect the recent years' development of the ozone layer with the increase of skin cancer."
Henriksen concludes:
"We can safely state that the picture of a depletion of the ozone layer is far more complicated than the picture that the media often gives. Those who expect a depletion timed with the release of CFC gases, will look in vain in their measurement results. It looks like the amount of ozone did increase in the 1950s and 1960s and reached a maximum in the 1970s. Since then, the amount of ozone has been decreasing. We believe that the low values in 1992 and 1993 are due to the volcano Mt. Pinatubo."
This, as opposed to your two sources, one of which is pimping for government funding to "study" the issue, and the other is wikipedia!
Post by: Desertdog on May 05, 2006, 01:25:24 PM
Unnoticed by the "scientist" is the millions of tons of Chlorine used in swimming pools and municiple waters ystems.
Also the following truths were never explained away to people that has some knowledge;
1) chloroflorocarbon (Freon) is heavier than air, so how did it get up to the stratsphere?
2) Chlorine gas is lighter than air.
3) Sunlight kills the effects of Chlorine, as proven by covering a chlorinated with a black plastic and see how long the pool stays clorinated, then cover it with a clear plastic and see how lone it stays clorinated. In fact, instead of buying bottled water or water filter, I set milk bottles of chlorinated water in the sun for a day or so and there is absolutly no chlorine taste left in the water.
Post by: m1911owner on May 05, 2006, 03:00:21 PM
1) While CFCs are heavier than air, the effects of atmospheric turbulance are much greater than effects of density, so, over the course of time, the various gases in the atmoshpere get quite well mixed up.
2) While chlorine gas is lighter than air, it is also soluble in water, so it ends up being cleaned out of the air before it has time to migrate out of the lower atmosphere.
3) I don't know exactly what reactions are going on there regarding pool chlorination, but chlorine is an element, so the only way it can be destroyed is in a nuclear reaction. If your thought is that sunlight is breaking down the chlorine in "the ozone layer", the answer is twofold: 1) No, sunlight doesn't destroy chlorine, and 2) Yes, sunlight does cause molecules containing chlorine to break down. That's a major point of the "destroying the ozone layer" argument--sunlight breaks up molecules containing chlorine, resulting in monatomic chlorine, which in turn proceeds to catalyze the breakdown of ozone.
Post by: publius on May 05, 2006, 03:20:51 PM
Hey, wasn't this the global warming thread, not the ozone thread? Ah, who cares? I'm still interested, and everyone is being polite. Have at it!
Post by: brimic on May 06, 2006, 06:37:37 AM
Global warming IMHO is created by humans- a hysteria created by humans that is. Ozone depletion on the other hand is real.
Post by: Desertdog on May 06, 2006, 09:08:12 AM
Quote
Ozone depletion on the other hand is real.
And is caused by?? They "say" it is from chloroflorocarbon, but then seem to ignore chlorine, volcano emissions and natural causes that they cannot grab cash grants to "study" the problem.
IMHO it is all a natural normal process of nature for the ozone to deplete and replenish it self, the world to heat and cool, trees to grow, and if not cut down or burned in a forest fire, will die and pollute the forest floor with their remains until they ruin the forest or there is a devistating fire to consume the dead wood.
Post by: richyoung on May 08, 2006, 04:26:19 AM
Quote from: Iain
I was in no way offended. Perhaps as a Brit I'm highly tuned to, and appreciative of, the back-handed compliment.
It's been good to discuss this with you Rich. I can only hope that next time I question the 'beliefs' and even the 'feelings' of a global warming advocate that they will remain as pleasant as you have.
Its likewise a pleasure to touch base with the Mother Country. God Save The Queen, and I hope you guys get your gun rights back soon...It's been good to discuss this with you Rich. I can only hope that next time I question the 'beliefs' and even the 'feelings' of a global warming advocate that they will remain as pleasant as you have.
Rich
Post by: richyoung on May 08, 2006, 11:15:10 AM
Quote from: brimic
http://www.hwr.arizona.edu/nats101/week13/notes/history.html
Global warming IMHO is created by humans- a hysteria created by humans that is. Ozone depletion on the other hand is real.
Ozone is cyclical, and consists of 3-dimensional structures throughout the atmosphere. By chosing your parameter boundaries carefully, a "hole" can be declared for any geographic area of lowered ozone. If mankind's use of chlorflorocarbons causes depletion, how did ozone levels RISE over Finland though the 50s, 60s and why were they at record LOWS in the 40s?
Global warming IMHO is created by humans- a hysteria created by humans that is. Ozone depletion on the other hand is real.
Post by: Bogie on May 08, 2006, 05:25:52 PM
Turned out she always poured it down the gutter drain by her driveway...
Well, that relationship went nowhere...
Post by: grampster on May 08, 2006, 05:47:02 PM